If it is true that
there is a collective conscious, then it stands there is a collective
unconscious. When considering that the
conscious part of an individual’s mind is less than 1% of the total mind, then
the collective unconscious is infinite.
How many of us have there been since it all began?
Likewise, the study
of the unconscious mind is infinite.
Thus the spiritual term, "god is infinite." Spiritually speaking the thing all spiritual
texts call god is really just the collective unconscious. If any one of us at any moment realized the
true power and potential of their total mind, that it is connected to the
entire universe; they would seem like a god compared to those of us who are not
that aware. If the story of Christ is
true at all then it stands that he was simply, compared to us, a super aware
individual. He would probably have been fully
aware of his Self, and his environment.
It’s not difficult
to see if you consider this. What if
right now you went to a local hospital, and started walking down the halls
healing people? I feel pretty confident
that the government would be grabbing you up before you got out of the building
unless you were prepared for that situation and fled like they say Christ
did. It wouldn't be a cross this time though, it would be a lab somewhere trying to figure out how to use your power for the benefit of the war machine.
The following is
from Alice Miller's book Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society's Betrayal of the
Child.
"A child raised
in accordance with traditional principles, who knows nothing else from the
start, is not able to detect hypocrisy because he lacks a basis for
comparison. Someone who knows only such
an atmosphere from childhood will perceive it as normal in all situations,
perhaps suffering because of it but unable to recognize it for what it is. If he has not experienced love as a child, he
will long for it but will not know what love can be. Jesus did know.
There would without
any doubt be more people capable of love if the Church, instead of urging its
members to obey authority and expecting allegiance to Christ on these grounds,
would understand the crucial significance of Joseph's attitude. He served his child because he regarded Him
as the child of God. What would it be
like if all of us regarded our children as children of God--which we could do,
after all? In his Christmas message of
1979 in honor of the Year of the Child, Pope John Paul II said that it is the
task of adults to instill ideals in their children. These words coming from a man capable of love
are certainly well-intentioned. But when
pedagogues, both clerical and secular, set out to instill prescribed ideals in
a child, they invariably turn to the methods of "poisonous pedagogy"
and at best train children to become adults who train others in turn instead of
raising them to become loving human beings.
Children who are
respected learn respect. Children who
are cared for learn to care for those weaker than themselves. Children who are loved for what they are
cannot learn intolerance. In an
environment such as this they will develop their own ideals, which can be
nothing other than humane, since they grow out of the experience of love.
I have been told
more than once that someone who as able to let his true self unfold during
childhood would become a martyr in our society because he would refuse to adapt
to some of its norms. There is something
to be sad for this idea, which is often advanced as an argument in defense of
traditional child-rearing practices.
Parents say they want to make their child learn to adapt as early as
possible so he or she will not have to suffer too much later on in school or
professional life. Since we still know
very little about the influence of childhood suffering on the development of
personality, it would seem difficult to refute this argument. Examples from history also appear to confirm
it, for there are many who were forced to die a martyr's death because they
refused to accept the prevailing standards of society and instead remained
loyal to the truth (and thus to themselves)."
Being raised in this
society, in contrast to what it is to be an actual realized human being; is
almost completely abusive. I will use
food as an example. Who has not been told by there parents that they are loved and at the same time served poisonous food at the dinner table? There will be a very
small number of American's who were not raised eating poison, while being told
they are loved. I recently bought some goat milk from an Amish family and there was Velveeta in their fridge. Even the Amish poison their children while praying to god to bless their bodies. That is a peculiar contradiction don't you think? How can one say they
love their self and at the same time eat poison? There will be a very small number of
Americans who can see this contrast because as Miller says, they cannot detect
the hypocrisy; it is all they know.
I have come across
many individuals who think they eat clean and healthy, but really do not at
all. In their minds the contrast was
still within the system, the food industry, corporate industry. Their definition of healthy was the systems definition. True health is outside the system. It is not profitable. There really isn't anything mass produced
that is clean and healthy.
The big idea to
realize is that it is not just the food; it is every single bit of it. Relationships, jobs, money, religion; all of
it. It's all abusive and whack. It does not take a whole lot of
research to discover that our current system comes from Europe, and the people
who designed the system were really nasty people. Obviously they still are. That is why really nasty things are still
occurring all over the world today; everyone is perpetuating the system because
they were raised traditionally and cannot see the contrast. It's like explaining what it is to stand on
top of a mountain to someone who has never been to the top of a hill. It's like asking someone to speak Chinese
when they do not even know there is a China.
